What am I if I think Jesus was the best moral teacher ever but am indifferent re his divinity?

[Anonymous]

There are plenty of Christian churches where you'd fit right in, although they may require a bit of work to find. I know some atheist Quakers and agnostic Episcopalians.

And I don't think you even need to excise the miracles. There are messages there that don't require literal belief to benefit from.

I'm a Christian who does believe in the deity of Christ, but I'm often pretty "agnostic" about the miracles and a literal Resurrection.

[Anonymous]

An atheist?

Atheists can think plenty of people, including Jesus, were great historical human teachers.

But the Bible regards Jesus from a religious/divine perspective - not a human perspective.

[Anonymous]

If the greatest moral teacher in the world proclaimed his divinity, I would think hard about whether he may have been telling the truth.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:
If the greatest moral teacher in the world proclaimed his divinity, I would think hard about whether he may have been telling the truth.

I need to look at the words of the Bible and their translation closely again, but I know some people think Jesus himself did not say explicitly that he was divine...

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:I think to be a Christian you have to accept him as savior. Christ taught about the need for salvation and that God sent him to save us from our sins. If you try to follow his teachings, that would suggest that you accept him as savior. If you don't believe what he said was true, how can you see him as a great moral teacher?

Holy God, that's not true. Yes OP, you can call yourself a Christian. You would not call yoirself an evangelical, but that wasn't your question. You are ok.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:What if you aren't convinced he actually existed but do think the "story" of Jesus had a profound effect on humanity? Some good, some bad.

Then I think you just appreciate good literature? I'm OP. I'm positive he existed.

You might be positive, but you can't really know. He lived too long ago, as a simple carpenter -- there is no proof of his existence. There is proof of christianity existing in the first century, but not of its founder.

[Anonymous]

I'm where you are and have come back to calling myself a Christian, albeit a Christian Atheist.

I grew up thinking I was a Christian because I come from a Christian heritage. Then I moved south to areas where being a Christian seems to hinge on the profession of Christ as divine savior, so I stopped. But I've recently determined that I'm no longer comfortable ceding the term to folks who don't seem to include Christ's teachings anywhere in their practice of faith, so I don't accept their definition of what it means to be Christian.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:What if you aren't convinced he actually existed but do think the "story" of Jesus had a profound effect on humanity? Some good, some bad.

Then I think you just appreciate good literature? I'm OP. I'm positive he existed.

You might be positive, but you can't really know. He lived too long ago, as a simple carpenter -- there is no proof of his existence. There is proof of christianity existing in the first century, but not of its founder.

This is true. If there really was a Jesus, he left no writings or his own, and no one started writing about him until the next century. Furthermore, if there really was a Jesus, why no mention in Roman histories? True, some versions of Josephus mention Jesus, but these are clearly Christian inserts. Moreover, the writings about Jesus contain nothing new. His sayings are quotations from the Old Testament. Even his throwing the money changers out of the Temple was a common practice at that time.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:What if you aren't convinced he actually existed but do think the "story" of Jesus had a profound effect on humanity? Some good, some bad.

Then I think you just appreciate good literature? I'm OP. I'm positive he existed.

You might be positive, but you can't really know. He lived too long ago, as a simple carpenter -- there is no proof of his existence. There is proof of christianity existing in the first century, but not of its founder.

This is true. If there really was a Jesus, he left no writings or his own, and no one started writing about him until the next century. Furthermore, if there really was a Jesus, why no mention in Roman histories? True, some versions of Josephus mention Jesus, but these are clearly Christian inserts. Moreover, the writings about Jesus contain nothing new. His sayings are quotations from the Old Testament. Even his throwing the money changers out of the Temple was a common practice at that time.

Actually that whole part about God becoming human and dwelling among us is pretty novel; Jesus's divinity is what is so unique about him. That and the rising from the dead thing.

[Anonymous]

Most of Jesus moral teachings were Talmudic.

[Anonymous]

You have to define the term Christian.

Culturally it can mean whatever you like, from someone who likes the teachings of Christ, to one who attended church as a child, whether atheist, agnostic, mormon etc.

But Christ's own definition excludes the vast vast majority.
The overall teaching of the gospel is that Jesus is the Son of God, and that indeed he is God (John 1: in the beginning was the Word, and the word was with God, and the word was God...the word became flesh."
That he died as a sacrifice for human sin and rose from the dead which proved his divinity (1 Cor 15, Hebrews 9)
He was the Jewish Messiah prophesied throughout the old testament such as Deuteronomy 18, Isaiah 53, Psalm 22 and many more.
And that to be his disciple you must believe this and repent your sins including idolatry (false religion)
John 1 "to those who believed, those who received him..."
Mark 1 "repent and believe the gospel"
Luke 24 "repentance and the forgiveness of sins in Jesus name"
Acts 2 "repent.. and be baptized in the name of Jesus"

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Most of Jesus moral teachings were Talmudic.

So OP is a Jew?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:I think to be a Christian you have to accept him as savior. Christ taught about the need for salvation and that God sent him to save us from our sins. If you try to follow his teachings, that would suggest that you accept him as savior. If you don't believe what he said was true, how can you see him as a great moral teacher?

+1

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Am I a Christian? I like reading the Bible to understand Jesus's teachings and try to follow them.

You are blessed. I try to understand and respect all religions but if someone had me identify myself as a Christian I would. I do consider myself non-denominational when it comes to a specific church affiliation.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:What if you aren't convinced he actually existed but do think the "story" of Jesus had a profound effect on humanity? Some good, some bad.

Then I think you just appreciate good literature? I'm OP. I'm positive he existed.

You might be positive, but you can't really know. He lived too long ago, as a simple carpenter -- there is no proof of his existence. There is proof of christianity existing in the first century, but not of its founder.

This is true. If there really was a Jesus, he left no writings or his own, and no one started writing about him until the next century. Furthermore, if there really was a Jesus, why no mention in Roman histories? True, some versions of Josephus mention Jesus, but these are clearly Christian inserts. Moreover, the writings about Jesus contain nothing new. His sayings are quotations from the Old Testament. Even his throwing the money changers out of the Temple was a common practice at that time.

The first writings about Jesus were just a few decades after his death (Mark was 60-70 AD and Paul's epistles are dated to 50-60 AD), not in the next century. Among the Romans, Pliny also mentions Jesus. Most serious historians don't causally write these Roman mentions off as "clearly inserts", FWIW, especially since they're not particularly pro-Christian.